Background
A child was removed from her mother M.M.C.’s care in April 2023 shortly after birth following positive drug tests for THC, amphetamines, and opiates. Both mother and father J.L.C. had regular visitation with the child in a foster placement until June 2024, when the foster parents reported problematic behaviors after visits. The mother voluntarily agreed to suspend visitation.
In July 2024, the CHIPS (Child in Need of Protection or Services) court entered an order formally suspending visitation and listing conditions for resumption organized under three broad categories, each prefaced with “includes but is not limited to.” In April 2025, the CHIPS court issued a revised order with substantially different conditions and removal of the “not limited to” language. In October 2024, the county filed a petition to terminate both parents’ rights; in July 2025, the county added a new ground: “continuing denial of visitation” under Wisconsin Stat. § 48.415(4). The circuit court granted summary judgment on this ground, and the parents appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The court reversed, holding that the county failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that an order denying visitation contain “the conditions necessary” for resuming visitation, as mandated by Wisconsin Stat. § 48.356(2). The July 2024 order’s use of “includes but is not limited to” language unambiguously contemplated additional unspecified conditions beyond those listed, leaving parents without adequate notice of what they actually needed to do to regain contact with their child.
The court rejected the county’s argument that the three broad category headings constituted the only “conditions” and that the listed items were merely “examples.” The court found this interpretation untenable given the order’s express language that each heading “includes” the listed items. The court emphasized that an order denying visitation is a significant legal document controlling a fundamental constitutional right—a parent’s ability to see their child and potentially determining whether parental rights are permanently extinguished. Such a document must provide sufficiently precise notice so parents understand the specific conduct expected to regain visitation.
The court also found persuasive support in Chippewa County v. C.F. (Wis. App. Jan. 21, 2026), which reversed a termination based on similar inadequate notice where conditions were described as “among” the requirements. The April 2025 revised order, which imposed substantially different conditions and removed the “not limited to” language, further demonstrated that the July 2024 order was incomplete. The court remanded with directions to grant the parents summary judgment on the continuing denial of visitation ground and permit further proceedings on remaining alleged grounds.
Key Takeaways
- Orders denying visitation in CHIPS cases must clearly specify all conditions for resumption; “includes but is not limited to” language violates the notice requirement.
- Vague or open-ended condition lists cannot support termination of parental rights based on the “continuing denial of visitation” ground under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4).
- Parents have a constitutional right to meaningful notice of what conduct is required to regain contact with their children.
- Subsequent amendments to visitation orders with materially different conditions may undermine the statutory one-year denial period and notice requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes important Wisconsin precedent protecting parental due process rights in termination proceedings. By requiring explicit, comprehensive notice of visitation conditions, the court prevents counties from using vague directives as a backdoor to terminating parental rights without a full evidentiary hearing. The decision emphasizes that orders affecting fundamental constitutional rights—particularly those that may result in permanent extinguishment of the parent-child relationship—must meet exacting standards of clarity and specificity.
The decision also creates a significant procedural barrier to the “continuing denial of visitation” ground, one of Wisconsin’s least litigated termination theories. Courts and counties must now ensure that any order suspending visitation provides unambiguous, complete notice of all conditions for restoration. The decision’s reliance on Chippewa County v. C.F. establishes a line of case law policing notice adequacy in this context, limiting opportunities to use summary judgment in these sensitive cases.